[postgis-devel] liblwgeom.so

[dustymugs]

I'd have to vote -1.

I think the change made is significant (like re-arranging a person's 
internal organs) and should have been done in spike instead of trunk 
until the PSC is comfortable merging it into trunk.

The reason I'm against this change for PostGIS 2.0 (besides being a 
conservative fellow) is that the other significant additions to PostGIS 
prior to this change (enabling of gserialized and to a lesser extent 
raster, geocoder and topology) still needs testing and benchmarking.

-bborie

On 09/09/2011 10:58 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> If you think it's dandy, tell us why! :)
> P.
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM, dustymugs<dustymugs at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> If I were asked to vote on it, I'd be -0. There are lots of things I
>>> hate about the code base now, I can hate one more, if everyone else
>>> thinks it's a dandy idea I won't veto, I have no monopoly on the
>>> truth, but I'd like us to actually poll the group and hear who *does*
>>> think it's a dandy idea and why.
>>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> When you say "group", are you talking about PSC or all the developers?
>>
>> -bborie
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>